Okay but it scales for us. I only follow my actual friends and family and I only want to see what they share, chronologically.

Crucially, we are forcing them to spend resources to remove the noise. And additionally, they can never be 100% confident on what is noise and what is real traffic, so they have to make a broad judgement between definitely removing all the noise but perhaps losing real data, or definitely keeping all the real data, but perhaps keeping noise.

Yea, wasn’t disagreeing with you, just echoing that particular sentiment

There’s a big difference between training Grok (their LLM and generative-ai offering) on it, and training a moderation tool

I’m not being disingenuous, I’m just being less charitable. The point of a dogwhistle is that it has plausible deniability.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/we-made-a-series-of-mistakes-gog-apologise-for-emailing-nazi-symbols-to-people-in-newsletter-about-slavic-fantasy-game

Tl;Dr

Sent out very Nazi symbology

Got feedback from German qa that it was Nazi symbology

Removed it only from the German emails and sent the Nazi symbology to everyone else

Oops sorry when they got called out

Hard to even want to support gog, with the Nazi stunt

Street lights are for pedestrians just as much as for motorists

The backup plan is already being used, and is the only reason it’s not more expensive

47 minute old account, 40 minute old advert

It sure fucking does, had to stop reading despite this article being a fucking collateral hit of two if my biggest interests

Goodness this is exhausting. I was not talking about literally being allowed to do something, that’s why it is in quotation marks. I was responding to you making assertions about my online “debate footprint” and how you attempted to use my relatively lower rate of discussing the impact of the meat industry online as a way to debunk my assertion. My (rhetorical) question was, how would my online behaviour have had to change for you to be satisfied upon trawling my posting history that I am not against AI for “trending” reasons?

Many claims may or may not have been debunked about AI water usage. My assertion is that its value provided to society is absolutely dwarfed by its footprint. Same can be said of the meat industry, fast fashion, etc. I maintain that stance even at your proposed value of 1% of the total water usage of the US. 1% is a lot when you are talking about the entire country’s consumption vs a single industry.

Your edit is wild. I’m “following trends” because I am selective about where I spend my time and energy based on where I am making the most impact? Would my stance somehow be more valid if I were arguing with brick walls online about other matters and not contributing at all to the causes I care about with that time and energy expenditure? Even if that wasn’t a wild take, its just a genetic fallacy and doesn’t serve to actually move the discussion forward.

Anyway, speaking of spending my time and energy in places I feel I’m actually accomplishing something, we’ve been talking past one another for a while now, so I’m gonna stop replying now. Have a good life.

I don’t have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that’s a dealbreaker.

I would argue that you care a great deal more about one that the other

Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I’ve just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool’s errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.

My stance on AI isn’t based on what’s “trending”, except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market “growth”, is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.

I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?

I’m confused, it seems we agree with eachother - did you mean to reply to the person I replied to, or were you just adding on to my point? :D

I contain multitudes. I can protest the mass growth of datacentres for other industries as well as for AI.

I hadn’t mentioned water usage, but since you bring it up, AI datacentres are being plopped down willy nilly and sucking up all the water from their local area, causing drought. Thats one stark difference between it and agriculture, which isn’t having the same kind of local effect.

However, the US (and other) agriculture+ industry (again, I contain multitudes) doesn’t get a pass. Estimates vary, but it looks like about 30-50% of US agriculture water usage goes to feed which is destined for livestock for the meat industry. I’d say that a person can be both against AI and an outspoken vegan against the meat industry, wouldn’t you?

Absolutely

No, its worse.

When you steal human created art off the internet you aren’t actively harming the environment. You arguably dont even harm the artist because you would never pay them anyway.

When you use an ai image generator, you are actively harming the environment, and actively harming artists by supporting tools that are trained on their art without consent.

Just use the human art, or something like picrew where people make things specifically for folks to use to make their characters for stuff like vtt

That doesn’t make it morally neutral :3

I worry your first wish would be the hitch here though.

Your next two wishes can never go against your intent if you never make any more wishes. The genie might grant your wish by ensuring you are unable to make any more wishes, perhaps by killing you or making you unable to communicate in any form

Created their account 7 hours ago and their only posts are these. For sure an ad.